Epidemiology and Patient Distribution of Oral Cavity and Oropharyngeal SCC in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral cavity cancers (OCCs) and oropharyngeal cancers (OPCs) continue to be a major source of morbidity and mortality worldwide requiring the shared effort of numerous specialists. Tobacco and alcohol consumption have long been identified as risk factors for both OCC and OPC. In addition, human papilloma virus (HPV) is gaining its position as the main causal agent for OPC. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to analyze the epidemiology of OCC and OPC in Canada. METHODS: Data pertaining to the year of diagnosis, the patient's sex, age at the time of diagnosis, province/territory, city and postal code of oral cavity, and oropharyngeal malignancies diagnosed during 1992-2010 were extracted from the Canadian Cancer Registry and Le Registre Québécois du Cancer. RESULTS: In total, 21 685 OCC cases and 15 965 OPC cases were identified from 1992 to 2010. Of those, 84.97% were oral cavity squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs), 88.10% were oropharyngeal SCCs, and both had a significant male predominance. While oral cavity SCC incidence stabilized over the study period, oropharyngeal SCC continued to increase. Oral cavity SCC incidence increased with age, while oropharyngeal SCC incidence peaked in the 50- to 59-year age group. Detailed geographic distribution analysis of patients at the provincial/territorial, city, and postal code levels identified several patient clusters. CONCLUSIONS: This work highlights important epidemiological differences in trends between oral and oropharyngeal cancers, identifies high-incidence postal codes for each malignancy, and correlates incidence/mortality with known risk factors including alcohol/tobacco use and HPV infections, therefore providing a comprehensive understanding of epidemiology for these cancers in Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".